If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Not only do I disagree, it is just like a Democrat to place blame on everything but the real problem!

The problem with GM is that you have poor workmenship producing a shoddy product along with poor management. If consumers liked the GM product, they wouldn't have such a hard time selling thier product. Mangement and labor is in this together and they didn't deserve a bailout.

The underlying economy was strong. The current administration will destroy that with thier economic suicide policies. We should have never bailed out the banks and certainly not the underachieving GM!

From thier demise, given a free market, other business would have emerged with better products and mangement.

Government has no place taking ownership in the private sector as they will only make it worse!

No business is too big to fail and our biggest failure is our big government.

What does political affiliation have to do with it? The underlying economy was not strong.
The Bush administration eventually conceded the economy was in a recession before he left office. I don’t really care which party was in office, the fact is, the economy had been on a downward spiral for several years before the current administration took office. Nothing was done to correct it early on, and it continued to worsen. There were a lot of factors that combined to cause it, but the fact is undeniable that the underlying economy was not strong. With growing unemployment, housing prices plummeting, and entire segments of the economy failing, how can you say the underlying economy was strong?

As far as the problem with GM and the rest of the U.S. auto industry, you over simplify the issue. Poor management and poor quality were major contributors. However, unfair trade practices by the Japanese (manipulation of the yen against the dollar and government subsidies) also served to give the Japanese an advantage in the market. Despite what you may believe, this has never been a “free market.”

If you look at current quality studies, several models from GM and Ford have displaced some Honda and Toyota models for top quality picks. The problem is consumers are afraid to take the chance on U.S. cars after the crap they produced from the early 80s through early 2000s, and rightly so. That is why this new GM campaign was developed. It is designed to entice buyers to try GM products again. GM believe if the can get consumers to try it GM products, they will like them. If it works, you will see other car companies (domestic and foreign) follow suite.

What does political affiliation have to do with it? The underlying economy was not strong. The Bush administration eventually conceded the economy was in a recession before he left office. I don’t really care which party was in office, the fact is, the economy had been on a downward spiral for several years before the current administration took office. Nothing was done to correct it early on, and it continued to worsen. There were a lot of factors that combined to cause it, but the fact is undeniable that the underlying economy was not strong. With growing unemployment, housing prices plummeting, and entire segments of the economy failing, how can you say the underlying economy was strong?

As far as the problem with GM and the rest of the U.S. auto industry, you over simplify the issue. Poor management and poor quality were major contributors. However, unfair trade practices by the Japanese (manipulation of the yen against the dollar and government subsidies) also served to give the Japanese an advantage in the market. Despite what you may believe, this has never been a “free market.”

If you look at current quality studies, several models from GM and Ford have displaced some Honda and Toyota models for top quality picks. The problem is consumers are afraid to take the chance on U.S. cars after the crap they produced from the early 80s through early 2000s, and rightly so. That is why this new GM campaign was developed. It is designed to entice buyers to try GM products again. GM believe if the can get consumers to try it GM products, they will like them. If it works, you will see other car companies (domestic and foreign) follow suite.

The financial market had been going south since 2001. The mortgage catastrophy started in the late 90's but, didn't hit home till 2007. Spending money we don't have and printing more is the quickest route to a weak underlying economy. Had the gov not interfered and let the chips fall where they should, the American citizens would be much better off. Not the freakin Wall St thugs!

Who is going to pay for the payoff for the votes from the UAW? We have politics in Washington that is out-of-control!

True, it has never been a Free Market. The Goobs have regulated it to death and won't take thier stinking fat fingers off.

GM has always done well with thier trucks/SUV's They can't give-a-way their passenger vehicles! In 1993, it was GM's 1500 pickup that saved then from going bankrupt. GM should get out of the car buisness and build trucks. A plan the UAW would never support. The UAW would have to be forced into it.

And, no one has been able to defend this latest Sales Promotion from GM that is pure bad business. OK with you to just print more money?

Last edited by Franco; 09-16-2009 at 08:11 PM.

Collecting more taxes than is absolutely necessary is legalized robbery. Calvin Coolidge

The financial market had been going south since 2001. The mortgage catastrophy started in the late 90's but, didn't hit home till 2007. Spending money we don't have and printing more is the quickest route to a weak underlying economy. Had the gov not interfered and let the chips fall where they should, the American citizens would be much better off. Not the freakin Wall St thugs!

...

So Franco, are you suggesting that Clinton was responsible for everything bad that happened to the economy from 2000 until November 2008 and that Obama is responsible for everything bad that happened to the economy since then? That does seem to be the general Republican line. Why shouldn't you join the chorus? I understand that Reagan and Bush Sr were responsible for everything good that happened to the economy from 1993 until 2000.

So Franco, are you suggesting that Clinton was responsible for everything bad that happened to the economy from 2000 until November 2008 and that Obama is responsible for everything bad that happened to the economy since then? That does seem to be the general Republican line. Why shouldn't you join the chorus? I understand that Reagan and Bush Sr were responsible for everything good that happened to the economy from 1993 until 2000.

That's not what I said!

The Dems can take ownership of the mortgage crisis. Liberal lending policies began with Clinton and run unchecked throughout the Bush years, thanks to Frank & Dodd. Bush wasn't stromg enough when he questioned the financial health of Freddie and Fannie in 02. Bush had his own spending problems, mostly Iraq and A'stan. Bush spent way too much in foreign aide and social programs too. I also blame the Bush administration for the mess on Wall St because it was his SEC that was asleep at the wheel. Bush also knew he was doing wrong by supporting the first round of bailouts. He did it to help McCain get elected. However, it all backfired on them and a major reason the GOP is in the sad state it is in.

In regards to bad economy. Other than some of my customers having been scared to death by all the doom and gloom in the National news, folks around here kept saying to one another, "when will it get bad here". We really didn't feel it other than the auto dealers where having a hard time getting buyers financed.

Obama has been making all the wrong moves and if you think Bush and Clinton had horrible policies, Obama's are even worse! At what point in time does one say, "we are out of spending money"? What I want to hear from DC is about spending cuts not TRILLION dollar deficits and even more spending!!!

The govenemnt can't fix it by spending money we don't have! Instead we have to be more resourceful and imaginitive in business. A concept huge gooberment has no concept of.

The American people do NOT trust our leadership and and that is why they will never buy into Gooberment run Health Care, nor the bailout, the massive spending social programs and all thw wasteful spending coming out of the current goobs.

Last edited by Franco; 09-16-2009 at 10:00 PM.

Collecting more taxes than is absolutely necessary is legalized robbery. Calvin Coolidge

The financial market had been going south since 2001. The mortgage catastrophy started in the late 90's but, didn't hit home till 2007.

Background
The immediate cause or trigger of the crisis was the bursting of the United States housing bubble which peaked in approximately 2005–2006.[6][7] High default rates on "subprime" and adjustable rate mortgages (ARM), began to increase quickly thereafter. An increase in loan incentives such as easy initial terms and a long-term trend of rising housing prices had encouraged borrowers to assume difficult mortgages in the belief they would be able to quickly refinance at more favorable terms. However, once interest rates began to rise and housing prices started to drop moderately in 2006–2007 in many parts of the U.S., refinancing became more difficult. Defaults and foreclosure activity increased dramatically as easy initial terms expired, home prices failed to go up as anticipated, and ARM interest rates reset higher.
Share in GDP of U.S. financial sector since 1860.[8]

In the years leading up to the start of the crisis in 2007, significant amounts of foreign money flowed into the U.S. from fast-growing economies in Asia and oil-producing countries. This inflow of funds made it easier for the Federal Reserve to keep interest rates in the United States too low (by the Taylor rule) from 2002–2006 which contributed to easy credit conditions, leading to the United States housing bubble. Loans of various types (e.g., mortgage, credit card, and auto) were easy to obtain and consumers assumed an unprecedented debt load.[9][10] As part of the housing and credit booms, the amount of financial agreements called mortgage-backed securities (MBS), which derive their value from mortgage payments and housing prices, greatly increased. Such financial innovation enabled institutions and investors around the world to invest in the U.S. housing market. As housing prices declined, major global financial institutions that had borrowed and invested heavily in subprime MBS reported significant losses. Falling prices also resulted in homes worth less than the mortgage loan, providing a financial incentive to enter foreclosure. The ongoing foreclosure epidemic that began in late 2006 in the U.S. continues to drain wealth from consumers and erodes the financial strength of banking institutions. Defaults and losses on other loan types also increased significantly as the crisis expanded from the housing market to other parts of the economy. Total losses are estimated in the trillions of U.S. dollars globally.[11]
While the housing and credit bubbles built, a series of factors caused the financial system to both expand and become increasingly fragile. Policymakers did not recognize the increasingly important role played by financial institutions such as investment banks and hedge funds, also known as the shadow banking system. Some experts believe these institutions had become as important as commercial (depository) banks in providing credit to the U.S. economy, but they were not subject to the same regulations.[12] These institutions as well as certain regulated banks had also assumed significant debt burdens while providing the loans described above and did not have a financial cushion sufficient to absorb large loan defaults or MBS losses.[13] These losses impacted the ability of financial institutions to lend, slowing economic activity. Concerns regarding the stability of key financial institutions drove central banks to provide funds to encourage lending and restore faith in the commercial paper markets, which are integral to funding business operations. Governments also bailed out key financial institutions and implemented economic stimulus programs, assuming significant additional financial commitments.

Obama has been making all the wrong moves and if you think Bush and Clinton had horrible policies, Obama's are even worse! At what point in time does one say, "we are out of spending money"? What I want to hear from DC is about spending cuts not TRILLION dollar deficits and even more spending!!!

I just saw a TV commercial where the new Chairman of Gooberment Motors is saying, "if you don't like our vehicles return them within 4,ooo miles, no questions asked. We are putting our money where our mouth is".

Problem is, it is not his money, it is our money he is putting in his mouth!

Collecting more taxes than is absolutely necessary is legalized robbery. Calvin Coolidge

Franco, arguing with a Liberal like Yardley is like getting into a pissing contest with a skunk, your going to get wet. No amount of logic can change their opinions. Why even try. They are just a product of their environment.